When will this yahooistic madness end?

The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.



  1. #1 Joel
    December 8, 2008

    Yeah, the idea that someone would call into question the citizenship of the son of a member of our armed forces because he was born in a foreign country, where his father was serving is a disgrace.

    Oh, that Obama thing is pretty stupid too.

  2. #2 Virgil Samms
    December 8, 2008

    When will this yahooistic madness end?

    Shortly after the war on terror, the war on drugs, and the battle of the sexes end.

  3. #3 AXJ
    December 8, 2008

    1. AXJ Says:
    December 8th, 2008 at 7:43 am

    The international civil and political rights organization known as AXJ asks why the Supreme Court will not review this matter. Is it up to the Electoral College and the WE THE PEOPLE Foundation? http://www.axjus.com

  4. #4 NJ
    December 8, 2008

    Awwwwwwww, you’ve had a visit from a birther, Greg. Aren’t they just so cute, in a straight-jacket-and-medicate-them-into-a-comatose-silence, sorta way?

  5. #5 Mike
    December 8, 2008

    To AJX and other loons. It’s not up to anybody. It means that avenue of inquiry is closed and Obama will be president. The electoral college will elect him and we the people will have a party on 20 Jan 09 to boot out the lying, stupid shrub and welcome in Obama.

  6. #6 Joel
    December 8, 2008

    And what are we welcoming?

    Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

    Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.

    Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

    Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

    Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

    The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

    “There don’t seem to be any liberals in Obama’s cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama’s policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”


    Seems he’s forgetting everything that got him elected. I don’t feel so bad that he’s abandoning the LGBT community.

  7. #7 Rob W
    December 8, 2008

    @Joel — I hope you’re not saying that anyone here was pushing that nonsense about McCain. If so, post incriminating links; I like to think anyplace I hang around is more rational than that.

  8. #8 Quiet_Desperation
    December 8, 2008

    Wait, British now? I thought they said he was Kenyan by birth? Wait, when did Kenya become independent? 1960-something? That works. Ack! I can’t keep my loons in order!


  9. #9 Rob Jase
    December 8, 2008


    “You can’t handle the truth”
    Jack Nicholson

  10. #10 Joel
    December 8, 2008

    @Rob W – Nah, not saying that. It was aimed at this part of the story…Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

  11. #11 Julie Stahlhut
    December 8, 2008

    Incidentally, Wikipedia has an article on this subject; maybe someone here with credentials in law can comment on its accuracy:


    Briefly: The first naturalization law passed in the U.S., in 1790, explicitly stated that the child of a U.S. citizen was a natural-born citizen even if born overseas. The Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the words “natural-born” but reiterated that children of U.S. citizens born overseas were still citizens. According to one referenced source in the Wiki article, the State Department honors the 1790 language.

    According to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, it has never been definitively determined by the courts whether an overseas-born citizen is “natural-born”, because that term is not fully defined:


    So, current U.S. law neither explicitly permits nor explicitly forbids people who were born overseas but were U.S. citizens at birth from being elected to the presidency.

  12. #12 Greg Laden
    December 8, 2008

    It depends on where you put the implied comma/hyphen.

    Natural, born-citizen. (preferably a vegetarian)

    Natural-born citizen (not of cesarian birth. Test tube babies stay away.)

  13. #13 the real me
    December 8, 2008

    It was that booger twirling, hateful little Uncle Tom Justice
    Clarence T. that pushed the suit across the desks of the others.
    And, if anything, I would thing the Dems would be more offended that the suit accused him of being British.

  14. #14 Romeo Vitelli
    December 8, 2008

    Would it count if the candidate was “born again” in the US? Religion has to be good for something.

  15. #15 Lurkbot
    December 8, 2008

    So which of the birth certificates that McCain provided was the forgery? Was it the one that said he was born in a hospital that wasn’t built until 20 years later? Or was it the one that replaced it when that was pointed out, that says he was born outside the Canal Zone in Colo�n?

    Presumably McCain or his staffers were told the same thing I was all through school, that unlike every other office, to be President you had to have been physically born in the US or its possessions. So I’m assuming the second one was authentic, and they publicized it when it was pointed out they didn’t need the first one. (“What did you need with the Hotel Bristol, anyway?”)

    McCain was qualified (on citizenship grounds, if in no other way) to be President. On grounds of providing forged documents to prove it, not so much.

    It would be interesting to know if any of these Obama Birthers were among the nuts who wanted to amend the constitution so Schwarzenegger could run for president….

  16. #16 Ben Breuer
    December 8, 2008

    Not trying to be a party pooper here (also, this thread seems kinda lukewarm) but doesn’t the Constitution explicitly restrict the “natural-born” clause only to the president-elect “at the time of the adoption of this constitution”, that is, to George Washington, and none after?